Biological father's drug abuse and parole violations substantiate denial of visitation privileges, as does fact that he was not a 'presumed' father and, therefore, not a 'parent' for purposes of the pertinent statute.
Cite as
2015 DJDAR 9018Published
Aug. 10, 2015Filing Date
Aug. 6, 2015In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
L.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. E061153
(Super.Ct.No. J245102)
California Courts of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District
Division Two
Filed August 6, 2015
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
The opinion filed in this matter on August 4, 2015, is hereby modified, as follows:
On page 8, in sentence number 5 under the Discussion section, delete the words ?the People? and replace them with ?CFS?.
On page 10, the last sentence of the paragraph beginning on page 9 should be deleted and replaced with:
However, as discussed below, this very substantiated finding of detriment was unnecessary given that the law does not change, once guardianship is selected as a child?s permanent plan, to suddenly give a merely alleged or biological father a new presumptive right to visitation.
On page 12, the first sentence of the first full paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following:
Our Supreme Court in Zacharia D. had no trouble determining that ?parent? in section 361.5, subdivision (a), did not include a merely alleged or biological father.
Except for these modifications, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification does not change the judgment.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
RAMIREZ
P. J.
I concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424